990
FINALLY. One university with the balls to stand up to Trump.
What’s the point of sitting on a $53B endowment if you’re not going to use it? Losing $9B in contracts to fight fascism is worth every penny.
Donald Trump proposed taxing large private university endowments as part of his 2024 election campaign.
This tax aims to fund the creation of the "American Academy," a new institution designed to provide free, high-quality educational content. The tax would target excessively large endowments, collecting billions of dollars to support this initiative
This proposal is part of a broader effort to reshape higher education and address political controversies within universities. The tax on endowment investment income could significantly impact universities with large endowments.
This just sounds like they're going to contract PragerU to rebrand their videos and then someone will pocket billions of dollars.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Columbia looking twice as pathetic now. I hope this catches on.
Dartmouth too. One of trump's rnc ghouls is working with her directly.
Likely because their endowment is large enough to not need federal funds.
I don't think Columbia's hard up for cash either, but they folded like a cardboard lawn chair
They have "Russian asset go fuck yourself" money.
Georgetown has been out ahead of this for weeks. But they get no press because they're (a) not Harvard and (b) not humiliating themselves in compliance rituals like Columbia, so they aren't as exciting to cover.
You've also got schools down in Texas - A&M and UT particularly - that have already been fully integrated into Governor Abbott's brand of Lone Star Fascism that there's little to report. Just a bunch of admins saying, in thick German accents, that everything is normal and there's nothing to see.
The Government will retaliate. I wonder if all intentional students will now be under a watchful eye
They already have been.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
The letter that they sent Harvard was mental. Demanding wholesale replacement of the staff and students, removing the human rights curriculum, removing any cultural studies, a full mask ban bc only ICE get to wear masks now apparently, and a tattletale hotline. That letter is so up its own ass. Glad they published it.
I don’t agree with Harvard (DEI & Pro-Palestinian protests), but I support them defying this order. They’re a private institution, the government is overstepping here.
I don’t agree with Harvard (DEI & Pro-Palestinian protests), but I support them defying this order.
Wait, so you... both think they should not have DEI programs and should expel pro-palestinian protestors, but you also think they should defy the government order telling them to do what you think they should do?
I'm not sure what the guy you're responding to's actual position is.
But from an objective standpoint, he could disagree with Harvard's DEI policies but still support Harvard's defiance of Trump because the DEI policies should be Harvard's choice to make, not Trump's.
Basically a variant of the saying "I disagree with what you say but defend your right to say it."
Yes, because the order is an abuse of power. I don’t agree with their policies, but private institutions shouldn’t be bullied by the government. I support their autonomy.
Fair enough. We disagree on the policy, but definitely agree on it being an abuse of power.
Person wants to ride all the highs, no consequences.
What dei policies do you object to?
The fact that DEI sounds good in theory but in practice it’s just systematic discrimination. Similar to Affirmative Action but that’s already been settled in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.
I’ve managed and hired in workplaces that have employed DEI for years. It’s not a hiring quota, like Affirmative Action. It’s a training course and cultural adoption to increase awareness around unconscious bias and microagressions. It’s a way to help identify discrimination, and bring it out into conversation. It also focuses on the benefits of diverse perspectives when approaching a problem.
load more comments
(13 replies)
it’s just systematic discrimination
I don't understand how fixing existing discrimination is in itself discrimination. People are not being oppressed because they aren't being given special treatment anymore. DEI policies have absolutely nothing to do with quotas or giving protected classes special treatment.
Most dei policies are designed to prevent people from using bias in the hiring process, and encouraging diversity. This can include removing name/gender/etc from the process.
What policies do you object to?
The fact that DEI sounds good in theory but in practice it’s just systematic discrimination. Similar to Affirmative Action
Can you elaborate on this? I've known DEI policies and Affirmative Action to be commonly confused with each other, but distinctly different.
In practice? Can you prove that?
I have always thought affirmative action had some issues but DEI was originally conceived by corporations to get better talent that would have otherwise not been hired due to racism, sexism, or any form of nepotism. Diversity of any kind has helped corporations make fuck loads of money for decades on top of helping veterans, old people and disabled people get jobs.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Just wanted to stop by and express my disappointment for the down votes. I disagree with you strongly on the policies, but I deeply respect your commitment to actual free speech, and I hope you hold that same energy when it comes to due process rights.
This type of "we must tolerate the intolerant" energy is how Reddit became neo-fascist. First being against DEI and Palestinians is a heinous political position. Second of all people who are against DEI believe it's racism, if he's okay with private institutions using what he believes are racist policies, that's a heinous position.
What you're basically reading is: "I'm a racist, and I think private institutions should be able to have policies I think are racist"
Yeah that's a no from me.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Harvard has its own issues of course, but don't let that distract you from the fact that this thing it's done is the right thing.
An insane list of demands like that should fall under the "We don't negotiate with terrorists" clause right?
Well, an insane list of demands aimed at an international school that derives a huge amount of its income from foreign students and a reputation as a global leader in law and commerce. Harvard's admins aren't "Going Woke". They're going into survival mode.
They're also likely looking at the bloodbath at Columbia as the admin over there bend itself into a pretzel to comply with these demands, gets their funding gutted anyway, and turns the student body into either El Salvadorian inmates or white nationalist freaks. Clearly there's no upside to compliance. Trump never goes away, he just comes back with a longer and more vile list of demands.
Collectivists supporting billionaires and running defense for them online in 3...2...1
The stunlock intensifies
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2025
990 points (100.0% liked)
politics
23300 readers
2602 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS